Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sharad Lodhi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr. on 2 January, 2017
Author: S.K.Awasthi
Bench: S.K.Awasthi
-( 1 )- CRR.No.325/2015
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT GWALIOR
SINGLE BENCH
BEFORE JUSTICE S.K.AWASTHI
Criminal Revision No.325/2015
Sharad Lodhi
Versus
The State of Madhya Pradesh & another
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri J. S. Rathore, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Prakhar Dhengula, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent No. 1/State.
None for respondent No. 2.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
(2.1.2017) This revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the applicant/accused Sharad Lodhi against the order dated 22.01.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karera, District Shivpuri in Sessions Trial No. 14/2015, whereby the charge for commission of offence punishable under Section 304 of IPC has been framed against the applicant/accused.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 22.05.2014 complainant Bhagirath lodged a report that his elder brother Babulal had gone to the market, Karera on 21.05.2014 and came back at about 06:00 PM in the evening. After some time he told to the complainant that he had paid in abdomen, therefore, he called doctor by phone. Applicant-Sharad Lodhi came to his house and gave treatment to his brother Babulal. Applicant injected Babulal two injections and after taking treatment his brother Babulal died. On this information, merg No. 30/2014 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. was registered and -( 2 )- CRR.No.325/2015 after due inquiry police registered an FIR bearing crime No. 474/2014 at police station Karera against applicant- Sharad Lodhi for the offence under Section 304 of IPC and Section 8 of Madhya Pradesh Upcharyagriha Tatha Rujopchar Sambandhi Sthapanaye Adhiniyam, 1973. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Karera, who committed the case to the Court of Session for trial.
3. In order to initiate the trial the trial Court on the material brought on record proceeded to frame charge against the present applicant on the basis that the death has been caused out of conduct of the applicant who had complete knowledge that this act is likely to cause death of the deceased Babulal. Accordingly, the charge under Section 304 of IPC has been framed which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court.
4. The contention of the present applicant is that he is a qualified doctor and, therefore, if a patient dies during the treatment, even then no intention can be attributed to the doctor, because the applicant has been invited to the house to attend the patient and he had no motive to administer wrong injection which may lead to death.
5. Per contra, the submission of respondent No.1 is that the trial Court has emphasized on the fact that there is no document on record which may indicate the qualification of the applicant to establish that he has a license to practice or he holds degree from a recognized medical college. Therefore, the reasoning given by the trial Court is just and proper.
6. Having considered the documents placed on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the contention of the respondent/State deserves to be accepted for the limited purpose of framing of charge because there is no document which may conclusively establish about the qualification of the -( 3 )- CRR.No.325/2015 applicant. On the contrary, the title of the revision petition and the affidavit filed by the applicant disclosed his occupation as agriculturist. Further, it is pertinent to observe that merely because the charge has been framed, does not hold the accused guilty for commission of offence charged against him and the accused has an opportunity to lead evidence with respect to his innocence and about lack of intention to commit culpable homicide amounting to murder.
7. Another fact which is pertinent to note is that in any case the trial is to be conducted against the applicant either for commission of offence punishable under Section 304 or 304-A of IPC. However, in case even assuming that the Court allows present revision application and converts the charge from the offence punishable under Section 304 to 304-A of IPC, and during the course of the trial, the prosecution is able to lead evidence indicating that the applicant is not a qualified doctor and this fact is not controverted by the applicant, then the trial would get initiated as no conviction can be made on the higher degree of evidence, whereas the trial Court has the power to pass an order of conviction in a lesser degree than the one for which the trial was conducted.
8. Taking this view of the matter, the instant revision application has no force and accordingly stands dismissed. However, it is made clear that this Court has not recorded any opinion about the qualification of the applicant which shall be for the trial Court to consider and come to conclusion.
(S.K.Awasthi) Judge neetu